(a) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Center director shall review and act on a protest filed in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514), within 2 years from the date the protest was filed. If several timely filed protests are treated as part of a single protest pursuant to § 174.15, the 2-year period shall be deemed to run from the date the last such protest was filed in accordance with section 514, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514).
(b) Protests relating to exclusion of merchandise. If the protest relates to an administrative action involving exclusion of merchandise from entry or delivery under any provision of the Customs laws, the Center director shall review and act on a protest filed in accordance with section 514(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1514(a)(4)), within 30 days from the date the protest was filed. Any protest filed pursuant to this paragraph shall clearly so state on its face. Any protest filed pursuant to this paragraph which is not allowed or denied in whole or in part before the 30th day after the day on which the protest was filed shall be treated as having been denied on such 30th day for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1581.
[T.D. 74-37, 39 FR 2470, Jan. 22, 1974, as amended by T.D. 99-65, 64 FR 43612, Aug. 11, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cherry Lane Fashion Grp., Inc. v. United States, 712 F. Supp. 190 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
· cites it 12× “(the “importer”) filed a summons and complaint to contest an alleged deemed denial of an accelerated protest filed pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.21 (b) (1988) against a detention of women’s wearing apparel to investigate a possible quota exclusion.”
Forest Prods. Nw., Inc. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“19 C.F.R. §§ 174.21 , .29 (2004). An importer may file for an accelerated disposition of the protest 90 days after filing, and, if the port director does not allow or deny the protest within 30 days, the protest is deemed denied.”
Forest Prods. Nw., Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“19 C.F.R. §§ 174.21 , 29. The importer may file for an accelerated disposition of the protest 90 days after filing, and, if the port director does not allow or deny the protest within 30 days, the protest is deemed denied.”
Wear Me Apparel Corp. v. United States, 511 F. Supp. 814 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1981).
“In short, plaintiff has failed to show that the exhaustion of administrative remedies should not be required here.”
Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2003).
“” 19 C.F.R. § 174.21 (b). With respect to form and number of copies of protests, the regulations additionally state that “[p]rotests against decisions of a port director shall be filed in quadruplicate on Customs Form 19 or a form of the same size clearly labeled ‘Protest’ and…”
Otter Prods., LLC v. United States, 2014 CIT 154 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2014).
“Otter’s protest was deemed denied, pursuant to 19 CFR § 174.21 (b), on December 8, 2014, and Otter filed suit to challenge the denied protest on December 10, 2014.”
Corning Gilbert Inc. v. United States, 2013 CIT 15 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013).
“Nevertheless, the Government argues that Customs cannot be expected nor required to perform “a comprehensive patent infringement analysis for every potentially excludable product” because the applicable regulations provide only 30 days for Customs to act on a protest of…”
Inner Secrets/Secretly Yours, Inc. v. United States, 869 F. Supp. 959 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1994).
“§ 1514 (a)(4). Furthermore, plaintiff could have minimized the threat of financial loss or instability by promptly seeking an accelerated review of a protest relating to *965 exclusion of merchandise pursuant to 19 C.”
Atmel Corp. v. United States, 719 F. Supp. 1101 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1989).
· cites it 3× “Among other things, the letter does not indicate clearly that it is a protest of an exclusion under 19 C.F.R. § 174.21 (b) (1988). 5 Such a facial designation is a prerequisite to the 30 day expedited disposition of a protest of exclusion as provided in the regulation.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. United States, 735 F. Supp. 1059 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1990).
· cites it 3× “The reason provided by Customs for its denial of the protests was a reference to 19 C.F.R. § 174.21 , a regulation which directs Customs to “act on a protest .”
Yuri Fashions Co., Ltd. v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 41 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
“Plaintiff protested the exclusion of its merchandise and demanded action on the protest within 30 days pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.21 (b) (1984). Plaintiff brought the action under 19 U.”
— 19 C.F.R. § 174.21(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.